Daily News

Democrats’ Chosen Witness Derides Catholics (12496)

Anti-Catholicism was on display at the recent ‘feminist mobilization’ forum.

Barry Lynn, president of Americans United for Separation of Church and State

– 2005 photo from Getty Images

The “religious-liberty claim” of the likes of Cardinal Timothy Dolan, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ president, in the debate over the Obama administration’s contraception/sterilization/abortion mandate is “bull****.”

That was the explicit message Barry Lynn, president of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, delivered at a feminist-majority “Women, Money, Power Forum” in Washington, D.C., March 29.

He joked that the word was one he had just learned from Republican presidential candidate and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, who recently used the expletive in a confrontation with a New York Times reporter.

Lynn was the final speaker for a panel titled “Bishops, Politicians and the War on Women’s Health.”

“What have we learned in school today?” he asked the crowd. “We learned that the Protestant religious right and the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church today have no moral authority whatsoever to seize on the rights of women.”

Lynn had been the witness Democratic members of the House Government Oversight Committee originally submitted to appear at the now disingenuously infamous Feb. 16 hearing on religious liberty and the Health and Human Services mandate. He would go on to withdraw his name in protest when Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown Law activist, was denied a last-minute request to appear.

“Any authority it had has been abdicated on the three pillars of bad constitutional law, junk science and a framework of patriarchy that is right out of the 12th century,” he continued.

Waxing theological, Lynn explained that “the central message of the Christian church is the significance of Jesus. It is not now — it never has been — about IUDs [intrauterine devices]; it’s not about Norplant; and it’s not even about abortion.”

“Real religious liberty does have a meaning in this country and should have a meaning throughout the world,” he went on to say. “It should mean that governments should not tell the church what it should believe. It does mean that government can’t play favorites among religions or even between theists and atheists. It means that persons of faith can proselytize, can evangelize, can even condemn those who don’t believe, so long as they do it on their own time.”

Lynn characterized the Catholic Church’s claim of religious liberty this way: “Here’s what the other side says: ‘We in the institutional Church have the right to get as much money from the government as our well-heeled lobbyists can possibly squeeze out of it, and, then, we, as a corporate entity, demand that we be allowed to ignore any and all the rules, regulations or civil-rights laws that we don’t like.’”

It’s an interpretation of religious liberty, he said, “that has got to be stopped, because if that’s the interpretation of religious freedom, then the Church ends up setting up all the rules. Anything that violates some claim, some tenet of some faith, no matter how trivial it may be, becomes a justification for exemption from the laws that apply to the rest of us. Any adverse effect that those exemptions have on anybody else is just tough luck for us, a cost of doing the Church’s business.”

On the HHS mandate, he glossed over the details, announcing in the late-morning session, “I do think it is morally wrong to put people in a coma right before lunch,” but he did manage to make a full-throated defense of the administration’s position: “Here’s the bottom line: The Obama administration, quite correctly, from the very beginning, wanted big religiously affiliated hospitals and universities — not the church on the corner — to cover birth control for their students and their employees who choose to use it.”

“And why not?” Lynn continued. “Of course it should be covered. For these corporations employ hundreds, even thousands, of people who have no connection to the religious orientation of that institution. Second, those corporations get hundreds of millions of tax dollars from state and federal programs. And third, these corporations hold themselves out as performing a service for the public. There’s no St. Joseph’s Hospital somewhere that says, ‘Come to our hospital and learn about Jesus.’ They say, ‘Come to our hospital because we’ll treat and try to cure your cancer.’ And that’s the trifecta of constitutional differences that mean that they should not be exempted from the laws that apply to every other community institution and every other person.”

Lynn predicted that “at the end of all this regulation writing and rewriting,” the regulations will say: “Big religious institutions just have to give employees a piece of paper that tells them how to get free birth-control coverage from some entity unrelated to the religious institutions.”

And the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Lynn predicted, will “again scream from the rooftops: ‘This is an infringement on our civil rights!’ Even a simple administrative act like handing out a form will be treated as if it were complicity in a sin as grave as murder or theft or adultery.”

Further, he expressed outrage that the bishops are making an argument for the religious freedom of not only their own diocesan and other institutions, but others as well: “They’re saying: ‘We demand that every single Catholic or fundamentalist business owner has the right to overrule the conscience of his employees too.’

“You see, you can’t run a comprehensive health-care system in this country — in legalese that is a ‘compelling government interest’ — if every employer can opt out of providing their employees the coverage that they desperately need or want whenever a single tenet of the faith is impinged upon in some tangential way.”

Lynn celebrated the recent Massachusetts court ruling that declared the bishops’ contracting relationship with the Department of Health and Human Services to provide anti-sex-trafficking services unconstitutional.

He recalled testifying before a congressional hearing on the matter of the renewal of the contract alongside then-Bishop William Lori of Bridgeport, Conn., the chairman of the bishops’ Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty, referring to Archbishop-designate Lori, who is headed for Baltimore, as the Church’s “chief lobbyist.”

Anticipating the thrust of an April 2 New York Timeseditorial, Lynn asserted that the denial of a continuation of the grant was the rightful result of “the Church’s unwillingness to provide comprehensive services to these girls and young women who were being bought and sold.”

Here, again, contraception is at issue, and, Lynn said, administrators of the grant “couldn’t even admit that there is something called abortion if they turned out to be pregnant.” He derided both the beliefs of the Church and their audacity in defending the rights of all Americans to practice what they preach as “some kind of corporate conscience” on behalf of the Church.

Lynn spoke after Barbara Blaine, president of the Survivors’ Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP), who expressed outrage that “bishops and Church officials” are ever “held in high esteem and listened to.”

“What gives them that moral authority?” Blaine asked. “How do they have the audacity to speak about women’s sexual health? Let me ask you: Do you know any politicians who are checking with the local gang leaders to establish the policy on the distribution of drugs?”

She added: “Now, you might say, ‘Is it really so bad?’ Yes, it’s so bad.”

Comments

While some may well oppose the law’s policy of promoting the availability of medical services they find objectionable, the law does not put employers in the moral bind some here suppose. Many initially worked themselves into a lather with the false idea that the law forced employers to provide their employees with health care plans offering services the employers considered immoral. The fact is that employers have the option of not providing any such plans and instead simply paying assessments to the government. Unless one supposes that the employers’ religion forbids payments of money to the government (all of us should enjoy such a religion), then the law’s requirement to pay assessments does not compel those employers to act contrary to their beliefs. Problem solved.

Some nonetheless continued complaining that by paying assessments to the government they would indirectly be paying for the very things they opposed, seemingly missing that that is not a moral dilemma justifying an exemption to avoid being forced to act contrary to one’s beliefs, but rather is a gripe common to many taxpayers–who don’t much like paying taxes and who object to this or that action the government may take with the benefit of “their” tax dollars. Should each of us be exempted from paying our taxes so we aren’t thereby “forced” to pay for making war, providing health care, teaching evolution, or whatever else each of us may consider wrong or even immoral? If each of us could opt out of this or that law or tax with the excuse that our religion requires or allows it, the government and the rule of law could hardly operate.

In any event, those complaining made enough of a stink that the government relented and announced that religious employers would be free to provide health plans with provisions to their liking (yay!) and not be required to pay the assessments otherwise required (yay!). Problem solved–again, even more.

Nonetheless, some continue to complain, fretting that somehow the services they dislike will get paid for and somehow they will be complicit in that. They argue that if insurers (or, by the same logic, anyone, e.g., employees) pay for such services, those costs will somehow, someday be passed on to the employers in the form of demands for higher insurance premiums or higher wages. They evidently believe that when they spend a dollar and it thus becomes the property of others, they nonetheless should have some say in how others later spend that dollar. One can only wonder how it would work if all of us could tag “our” dollars this way and control their subsequent use.

Posted by Matt B on Friday, Apr 6, 2012 1:54 AM (EDT):

The assertion that our Church should not take “government money” is flawed in one way: that “government money” originates from Catholics as well as from non-Catholics and non-believers. The moment Uncle Sam precludes our Catholic organizations from accessing “government money” is the same moment I should be “excused” from contributing to the public coffer. Is there any hesitation on the part of US to using my money to fund abominations here and across the world? No, they consider it their right to steal from me to commit atrocities in my name. “Government money” is a complete misnomer. It is really my money that the goverment has absconded with, to conduct illegitimate, unfounded and criminal acts.

Posted by Lisa Spear on Thursday, Apr 5, 2012 4:34 PM (EDT):

It breaks my heart to say it, but this is exactly the meme that my sister - who is a nurse and professed Catholic - recites. I pray for her heart to be softened, and her eyes to be opened by the Holy Spirit. I ask that you pray for her, too.

The mere fact that Mr. Lynn would make a key point of his remarks that the Protestant right and Catholic bishops have no moral authority explicitly states they do have moral authority. Why make a point about something that does not exist? It is what refutes the argument that God does not exist. It is illogical to argue about something that isn’t in evidence.

Posted by Bob Rowland on Thursday, Apr 5, 2012 1:44 PM (EDT):

Mocking God has a prescribed destination.

Posted by Bob Rowland on Thursday, Apr 5, 2012 1:35 PM (EDT):

Why am I not surprised by the garbage from Americans
United for Separation of Church and State. They apparently consider of and from synonyms. I suspect Thomas Jefferson bit his tongue after he saw how his comment was misconstrued.

Posted by TG on Thursday, Apr 5, 2012 1:30 PM (EDT):

I do not agree with what this man says but I do think Catholic institutions should not ask for federal money. When you get federal grants, you have the government in your business.

Posted by LoneThinker on Thursday, Apr 5, 2012 1:23 PM (EDT):

It is dtill amazing that the “Separate” crowd are usually more on the side of stopping the Faith group, this spokesman for Obama’s Agenda and the ACLU. Then Ms Blaine shows her true hand again, she protests the abuse era but wants to continue blasting the bishops to heck and beyond. No justice for anyone until you wipe the Church out? Do not hold your breath, and keep the refrigerator filled. It will be a long wait.

Posted by Vance on Thursday, Apr 5, 2012 12:31 PM (EDT):

Barry Lynn has been a long-time jehadist against the Catholic Church and Christianity. He is a hard core Marxist liar who once claimed to be a Reverend. He dropped the reverend title when people became wise to what and who he is. Barry Lynn like Barry Soetoro hates the Catholic Church and Christian Culture.

Posted by David Carlon on Thursday, Apr 5, 2012 11:48 AM (EDT):

“The separation of church and state…” is the radical feminist, gaystapo, atheist, and nihilist mantra of injustice and hate. It is an impractical myth perpetuated by the pseudo-intellectuals and educated idiots whose self worshiping pride and idolatry replaces God at the center of their bile filled dry hearts. Fools…

Posted by DAVE on Thursday, Apr 5, 2012 11:25 AM (EDT):

Ironically, Mr., or should I say, Rev. Lynn is an ordained pastor of the United Church of Christ. As a former Lutheran pastor, I’ve encountered this man’s “teachings,” “pronouncements,” and agenda for many years, and I’ve always been SICK by his radically left, socialist, and immoral aproach to morality, faith and and the great tradition, all the while being the pet democratic party ‘christian’ with his over zealous, not to mention idolatrous, worship of the secularism affecting western culture, especially growing in the US. Just listening to his rhoetoric doesn’t shock me here, as its consistent with this ‘progressive’ views and work ever since his ordination.

While being a UCC clergy doesn’t mean he’s left-wing, but the radically, shall we say, ‘libertarian’ mindset (in that individual members are free to believe whatever they want) allows for this kind of clergy to promote himself as “christian.” The UCC has a spread of belief from nearly confrssional (think Lutheran/Orthodox) to radically Universalist/Unitarian. I only bring this us as illustrative of not only what happens when there is a lack of hierarchy/magisteriuam authority, but as an (as in one of many) underlying motive to brutally HATE the Cahtlic Church, the Magisterium, and any sense of moral conscienceness.

It is this misguided, and immoral, mindset has unforturnately, I am saddened to say, filtered out (upstream? maybe) into the mainstream protestant churches, as a whole. A few have fought against the immorality, but they find it a difficult and overwhelming struggle because of the radical INDIVIDUALISM that American Protestantism as deeply embedded into it - a radical patriotism, if you will (nothing wrong with patriotims, but this borders on idolatry), which seeks to make the churches one not with Christ but with country.

We were the greatest nation, when we protected religious conscience, true libety, and had a (generally, though not perfect) moral compass. If we will ever get back there waits to be seen.

Posted by Bob D. on Thursday, Apr 5, 2012 10:13 AM (EDT):

“Any authority it had has been abdicated on the three pillars of bad constitutional law, junk science and a framework of patriarchy that is right out of the 12th century,” —————————
The U.S. Constitution was adopted in 1787, not the 12th Century. And it CLEARLY states that government shall not infringe upon religious liberty. So when Barak Obama plays Chairman Mao, of course, religious leaders, not only Catholic but Protestant, Muslim and Jewish leaders, complain bitterly of the unconstitutional orders from a socialist President.

Posted by That Hat Lady on Thursday, Apr 5, 2012 10:07 AM (EDT):

I see Barry learned a new swear word today, so he can finally graduate from Jr. High. I believe Barry & his chauvinist mentality is straight out of the 12th century: Forcing taxpayers to pay for someone’s abortion is a right? Promoting women as sex objects to men is women’s liberation? Encouraging women to enter into loveless relationships with men who beat them, use them and leave them in poverty is a right? And if we don’t subsidize these activities, he’ll punish us? Pardon me, but that’s the dark ages. Humana Vitae is the first document in the 20th century that called for respect for women and family. Barry doesn’t get it.

Posted by Rafael on Thursday, Apr 5, 2012 9:51 AM (EDT):

Those women and men involved in the “feminist” movement only further promote the hatred of themselves. They loathe being women. They hate their femininity, their fertility. They would rather be men. But, they hate men, too. So, where does that leave them????? Lost souls…

How can any good movement be based on hate? Instead of liberation, you get oppression. But not by men: by women!!!!

This is almost akin to the slavery that goes on in Africa today that is carried out not by white men, but by black men.

Posted by Bob on Thursday, Apr 5, 2012 9:47 AM (EDT):

So if I’m reading this correctly, he’s in agreement that Christianity is about the significance of Jesus, and religious liberty means the government shouldn’t tell us what to believe, but then he’s angry about what we believe?

Mr. Lynn, by your own words, “[Religious liberty] should mean that governments should not tell the church what it should believe.”

Did you miss when Obama said “No, the mandates remain. We’re more or less giving you this time to find out how you’re going to be able to comply.”?

Is that not the President, the head of the government, telling us that our beliefs are wrong?

Posted by Jason on Thursday, Apr 5, 2012 9:41 AM (EDT):

Isaiah 5:20

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Posted by Howard Duncan on Thursday, Apr 5, 2012 9:36 AM (EDT):

“Real religious liberty does have a meaning in this country and should have a meaning throughout the world,” he went on to say. “It should mean that governments should not tell the church what it should believe. It does mean that government can’t play favorites among religions or even between theists and atheists. It means that persons of faith can proselytize, can evangelize, can even condemn those who don’t believe, so long as they do it on their own time.”———-He should be smart enough to know that it is impossible to tell a person what to believe directly. Totalitarian governments use the power of law to compel a person to behave as it wishes all to believe, until it achieves voluntary compliance. These despots also think that they own the time of their subjects. We are living in a dangerous and nasty era of their making.

Posted by Bartholomew on Thursday, Apr 5, 2012 9:07 AM (EDT):

How ironic that Barry Lynn, president of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, now wants to erase the line of separation and allow the government to define Catholic doctrine and instruct the Church to ignore Her religious liberty rights and be complicit in the sins of the laity.

“A Corporate Entity?”, my dear you are forgetting one major factor in your whole attack add against Cardinal Dolan and the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Faith Community. The church of the Roman Catholic Faith IS the People of God. ” And ” This “People of God” is just that individuals who have neither been hypnotized nor hog-tied to any structure or building but rather enter and choose of their own free-will to embrace this faith and it’s doctrine. A “People of God” may I remind you who are individuals who have the right to choose of their own free- will, once again, who they mark their X for come election day of the government. And may I remind you that the individuals that you speak Of are in fact rightful citizens of your country, a portion of which make up your government, a portion of which are women who choose of their own free-will to embrace the doctrine of this faith as their moral compass, but probably of most significant to you who seeks their on election- a portion who have the right to rise up in civil disobedience against a group of Government elect who want to tell it’s citizens and the people of God that they gave no right to live by a faith-based set of values. You see, you are speaking of one and the same people for there is no separating church and state . But take heart for in the words of great Canadian Dieffenbaker “Courage my friend, it’s not too late to make a better world.”

Posted by JMJ on Thursday, Apr 5, 2012 8:47 AM (EDT):

The term that Sen. Santorum is a very natural act by the bulls, dogs, people, etc.; but, the bull of Lynn and Blaine and all of the others at that unholy meeting of the devil’s and demons was straight from hell. We need to pray and fast very much for their conversions and to ask Jesus to send the Holy Spirit down upon them to free them from such hate that they thrive on. +JMJ+

Posted by Dave on Thursday, Apr 5, 2012 8:45 AM (EDT):

Barry Lynn’s Golden Rule - He who has the gold makes the rule. Now there is truth to that only if power is the end of the gold stream, which it almost always is. Catholic institutions have been more than happy to take the dollars. So there are 2 choices: Close the institutions as has been said correctly that we cannot submit; or 2, become fiscally independent of Ceasar. It is my opinion that we should have beenon the path to independence for a long time recognizing the destructive nature of almost all government ‘welfare’ and ‘medical’ programs. So we’ll see. The Supreme Court may help in this skirmish but the battle will rage on and on and on.

Posted by William J Quinn on Thursday, Apr 5, 2012 7:44 AM (EDT):

He has it right when he speaks of a sin as grave as murder.

Join the Discussion

We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words.
By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines.
Comments are published at our discretion. We won’t publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words.
Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.